[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [gnugo-devel] Inge's patches

From: Arend Bayer
Subject: Re: [gnugo-devel] Inge's patches
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 02:35:06 +0100 (CET)

> Dan wrote:
> > The two patches of Inge's seem beneficial on the basis
> > of the regressions. 
> That is nice although surprising.  The patches are purely
> infrastructure and are not meant to change any regression results.
> I think I will have a look and see what is going on.
I think I can explain that. In discard_rules, there is the rule (which
I adapted from the old code when I introduced the discard_rules in 3.1.17 or

    tactical_move_vs_either_worm_known, REDUNDANT,
    "  %1m: 0.0 - att. either/def. both involving %1m (direct att./def. as 

I assume you haven't translated this to you ALL_MOVE, Inge? Maybe this
makes sense only for ATTACK_EITHER_MOVE. I am always a bit confused about
the meaning of DEFEND_BOTH (i.e., what is the status of the two strings
concerned if I do not play there?), so I do not really know.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]